Responding to this (U.K.) piece:

This is the fear that, if he wins, US defences will be emasculated at a time of unprecedented international peril and the enemies of America and the free world will seize their opportunity to destroy the west.

Larison writes:

International peril is not at unprecedented levels.  There have been any number of times before, during and after WWII when international peril has been much, much greater, so claims of unprecedented peril are just simply false.  Short of a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Russians, which is not at all likely, the West is not going to be destroyed by anyone, unless we do it to ourselves through more senseless conflicts, mismanagement and excess.  There are serious threats and some real enemies, but none of our real enemies possesses the ability to destroy us.  Get a grip.

I get this all the time in conversations with those who think terrorism is somehow more of a threat than Soviet nukes were. And when you press people on this point - how in the world can you say that terrorism is somehow more of an existential threat than the possibility of utter nuclear annihilation was - I’ve heard this:

Well, terrorism is just so scary.

Unpredictable; hard to control. At least the Rooskis would come to the table; but these terrorists, they’re just crrrrrrazy.

Maybe. But for more than seven years we’ve proceeded, as a nation, on this idea that our enemies could destroy us. And that, to me, has always been the biggest difference between Obama and McCain. McCain would stay on that path. Obama recognizes terror as a threat - but realizes that to call it an existential threat is to lose your grip. As we havee.